Yeah, the Ancient Assyrians totally hated the Jews. Is that why they allowed Jonah to preach at Nineveh? Or is that why they changed their attitudes and behaviours in accordance with Jonah's preaching?

It looks like you're having a hard time coping with this, is it keeping you up at night? I don't blame you. I'd toss and turn in my sleep if I was a dirty Arab as well, but I'm an Assyrian and it makes all the difference.

Dirty?

It isn't most Arabs who live in sh!thole mountain villages with no running water

We also clean our asses with water while you cave savages only use tissues, you probably all smell like crap.

Absolute hogwash. How one person can fit so many mistakes into a sentence so short is beyond me. Sumerian culture was Iranic? Akkadians came from the Arabian Peninsula? Akkadians then inhabited the Levant (which is a possibility that some did however there is no good evidence for it)? Akkadians who allegedly came from the Arabian Peninsula then became Arabs? Assyrians and Babylonians mixed into extinction?

Where the hell did you get these completely bizarre views that grossly contradict the established facts?

When we thought profound ignorance was the only short stick drawn in this conversation, our guest had to up the ante with dismal irrationality.

Do you really think that the political stance of an empire that existed over 2,600 years ago necessitates a genetic/cultural preservation of that very particular political disposition within it's modern population. Do you really think that every thought emerging from a society must be static for there to be continuity of that society? Do you really think Italians wake up in the morning and feel like setting sail towards Tunisia in their galleys? -do you think if they don't do this, they can't be descendants of ancient Italians?

It might also shed some light on the absurdity of this claim to realise that Assyrians converted to Judaism prior to their converting to Christianity. It might also add a fraction of embarrassment to realise that some of these Jewish Assyrians did not convert to Christianity and some of their descendants have partially preserved their identity until today and speak Assyrian dialects of Aramaic as other Assyrians although they only identify as being Jewish.

And you think you're the genetical continuation of Ancient Assyrians? Just because the British said so? Don't make me laugh.

The truth is, Syrian and Iraq Arabs are no less ''Assyrian'' than the mountain savages who call themselves ''Assyrians'' nowadays.

And you think you're the genetical continuation of Ancient Assyrians? Just because the British said so? Don't make me laugh.

The truth is, Syrian and Iraq Arabs are no less ''Assyrian'' than the mountain savages who call themselves ''Assyrians'' nowadays.

More hogwash. On the one hand, there is academia, and on the other, there are your passionate assertions.

Since you have ignored my responses to these outlandish claims, I will repeat a couple of them below.

So the British invented the Assyrian identity? Perhaps we are to blame for confusing them when we introduced ourselves as "Assyrians" -then again, it would only be fair if our Arab, Kurdish, Turkish, Iranian, Armenian, Jewish, Italian and Georgian friends shared the blame since they too referred to us as "Assyrians" in a unprecedented union forged merely to deceive the British and the entire Western World for the next 177 years and counting. We are so glad that you have corrected what Western academia considered fact up until you submitted your post -what would the experts do without you, our dear guest.

Below is proof of Assyrian continuity. I would strongly recommend looking at the first link since it is complemented by various sources and images for the lexically challenged or those not taken to reading. The third link is the most in depth of the three and, along with the second link, requires one's undivided attention.http://www.assyrians.n.nu/9

What are you talking about? Assyrians were one of the first Christians, after the Hebrews. When we became Christian, it's not like we traveled the world, converted people, interbred and came back to the homeland. We were always in our native country. We lived in villages, cut out from the world and remained virtually endogenous. We did get mixed with Romans, the some of us, since their empire engulfed the Middle East. But our Roman blood is still relatively insignificant. You're speaking of us like we've mixed with every race in the world (that would be the Romans and the Brits). I'm not sure why you're obsessed at making Assyrians very mixed whilst you pontificate about how pure you are in comparison. Why are you threatened by Assyrians? What's the deal with this, seriously? Also, not to mention, why are you ignoring the charts that I've linked here? You can see how pure we are compared to other Middle Easterners.

Compared to other Assyrians Chaldeans have much less Levant and much more Zagros (Caucaso-Gedrosia) component in their DNA.

Assyrians written in my Gedmatch is an AVERAGE of all Assyrians, including the Chaldeans. It's is mostly because of the Chaldeans that 'Assyrians' cluster closer to the Northern West Asians, like Georgians, Adygei, Kurds, Ossetians, Persians, Azeri and further away from the Levant.

Okay, maybe some Assyrian tribes will be closer to other races of people. I won't be against that, because I have suggested that a few tribes resemble their neighboring ethnic group. Is there a take on Iranian/Urmian Assyrian? They're the most Iranid looking ones out there. Beneil Dariush, a Persian Assyrian, looks very Iranian to me. As do many others.

Quote

I'm sure that Assyrians are also mentioned in the top 20 of other West Iranian People of the Iranian Plateau. Doesn't mean those West Iranian People are from the Assyrians. It is because Assyrians absorbed, especially Chaldeans, a lot West Iranian DNA. I mean what do North West Iranian groups like Talys, Gilaks and Mazanderani people have to do with the Semitic Assyrians.

The "absorbing" is not really surprising. Neighboring ethnic groups, regardless of how distinct they are, would always intermingle one way or another. And, as such, they wouldn't be so pure. I mean, for instance, Kurds look more like Assyrians than they do like Afghans. Yes, I know, Kurds and Afghans "evolved" from the same place thousands of years ago in the Iranian plateau (I don't disagree with that). But after so many thousand years, as Kurds and Assyrians got closer in the Mesopotamian lands, they started cluster with each other and thus began to resemble each other. Both mixing and evolution played a role in this. Afghans began to mix with Asiatic or Mongoloid type of people, considering their proximity to Central Asia. Or maybe, rather than them mixing, evolution gave them the epicanthic fold, due to their location? I mean, why do many Afghans have Asian eyes?

What are you talking about? Assyrians were one of the first Christians, after the Hebrews. When we became Christian, it's not like we traveled the world, converted people, interbred and came back to the homeland. We were always in our native country. We lived in villages, cut out from the world and remained virtually endogenous. We did get mixed with Romans, the some of us, since their empire engulfed the Middle East. But our Roman blood is still relatively insignificant. You're speaking of us like we've mixed with every race in the world (that would be the Romans and the Brits). I'm not sure why you're obsessed at making Assyrians very mixed whilst you pontificate about how pure you are in comparison. Why are you threatened by Assyrians? What's the deal with this, seriously? Also, not to mention, why are you ignoring the charts that I've linked here? You can see how pure we are compared to other Middle Easterners. Okay, maybe some Assyrian tribes will be closer to other races of people. I won't be against that, because I have suggested that a few tribes resemble their neighboring ethnic group. Is there a take on Iranian/Urmian Assyrian? They're the most Iranid looking ones out there. Beneil Dariush, a Persian Assyrian, looks very Iranian to me. As do many others.

The "absorbing" is not really surprising. Neighboring ethnic groups, regardless of how distinct they are, would always intermingle one way or another. And, as such, they wouldn't be so pure. I mean, for instance, Kurds look more like Assyrians than they do like Afghans. Yes, I know, Kurds and Afghans "evolved" from the same place thousands of years ago in the Iranian plateau (I don't disagree with that). But after so many thousand years, as Kurds and Assyrians got closer in the Mesopotamian lands, they started cluster with each other and thus began to resemble each other. Both mixing and evolution played a role in this. Afghans began to mix with Asiatic or Mongoloid type of people, considering their proximity to Central Asia. Or maybe, rather than them mixing, evolution gave them the epicanthic fold, due to their location? I mean, why do many Afghans have Asian eyes?

It's a myth that Assyrians from different countries or churches are genetically different to each other. Assyrians are genetically homogeneous and distinct from their neighbours.

" A series of modern Genetic Studies have shown that the modern Assyrians from Northern Iraq, Southeastern Turkey, Northwestern Iran and Northeastern Syria are in a genetic sense one homogenous people, regardless of which church they belong to (e.g. Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Assyrian Protestant). Furthermore, their collective genetic profile differs from neighbouring Syrians, Levantine Syriac Christians, Kurds, Iranians, Arabs, Turks, Armenians, Jews, Yezidis, Shabakis, Greeks, Georgians, Circassians, Turcomans, Maronite Christians, Egyptians and Mandeans. "

" Late 20th century DNA analysis conducted on Assyrian members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church and Syriac Orthodox Church by Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, "shows that Assyrians have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population." Genetic analysis of the Assyrians of Persia demonstrated that they were "closed" with little "intermixture" with the Muslim Persian population and that an individual Assyrian's genetic makeup is relatively close to that of the Assyrian population as a whole. "

" Cavalli-Sforza et al. state in addition, "[T]he Assyrians are a fairly homogeneous group of people, believed to originate from the land of old Assyria in northern Iraq", and "they are Christians and are probably bona fide descendants of their namesakes." "The genetic data are compatible with historical data that religion played a major role in maintaining the Assyrian population's separate identity during the Christian era". "

" A 2008 study on the genetics of "old ethnic groups in Mesopotamia," including 340 subjects from seven ethnic communities (Assyrian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Armenian, Turkmen and Arab peoples of Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait) found that Assyrians were homogeneous with respect to all other ethnic groups sampled in the study, regardless of each Assyrians religious affiliation. "

" A study by Dr Joel J. Elias found that Assyrians of all denominations were a homogenous group, and genetically distinct from all other Near Eastern ethnicities."

" In a 2006 study of the Y-chromosome DNA of six regional populations, including, for comparison, Assyrians and Syrians, researchers found that "the Semitic populations (Assyrians and Syrians) are very distinct from each other according to both [comparative] axes. This difference supported also by other methods of comparison points out the weak genetic affinity between the two populations with different historical destinies." "

" In 2008 Fox News in the United States ran a feature called "Know your Roots". As part of the feature, an Assyrian reporter, Nineveh Dinha was tested by GeneTree.com. Her DNA profile was traced back to the region of Harran in south-eastern Anatolia in 1400 BC, which was a part of ancient Assyria, however the accuracy of these tests is disputed. "

" In a 2011 study focusing on the genetics of Marsh Arabs of Iraq, researchers identified Y chromosome haplotypes shared by Marsh Arabs, Arabic speaking Iraqis, Mandeans and Assyrians, "supporting a common local background." "

The "absorbing" is not really surprising. Neighboring ethnic groups, regardless of how distinct they are, would always intermingle one way or another. And, as such, they wouldn't be so pure. I mean, for instance, Kurds look more like Assyrians than they do like Afghans. Yes, I know, Kurds and Afghans "evolved" from the same place thousands of years ago in the Iranian plateau (I don't disagree with that). But after so many thousand years, as Kurds and Assyrians got closer in the Mesopotamian lands, they started cluster with each other and thus began to resemble each other. Both mixing and evolution played a role in this. Afghans began to mix with Asiatic or Mongoloid type of people, considering their proximity to Central Asia. Or maybe, rather than them mixing, evolution gave them the epicanthic fold, due to their location? I mean, why do many Afghans have Asian eyes?

Kurds are closely related to all other North West Iranian people. ALL WEST Iranians look similar to each other.

Afghans are a mixture between Tajiks (Persians, West Iranians), Pashtuns (EAST Iranians) and the Uzbeks (Mongoloid Turkic people). Afghans can be considered as EAST Iranians. East Iranians evolved from EAST Iranic tribes like Bactrians, Sogdians etc. around BMAC. Kurds are NORTH WEST Iranians. Evolved from the NorthWest Medes. The Medes were like Kurds North WEST Iranians.

Maybe we have some common ancient ancestors, but Kurds and Afghans are not the same because Kurds are North WEST Iranian people. Ancient Iranians from the Zagros migrated to Central Asia (BMAC) and evolved later into the East Iranians.

There is a difference between West Iranians and East Iranians.

The Medes = North WEST Iranian = Kurds, Gilaki, Talysh, Luri etc.The Persians = South WEST Iranian = PersiansThe Scythians = North EAST Iranian = Not real Iranians, but were Iranized Steppes people. Later assimilated by Slavic and Turkic people in the Steppes.The Alanians/Sarmatians = North EAST Iranian = OssetiansThe Bactrians & Sogdians = South EAST Iraniansetc.

Cadusii[3]Caspians[4]Cyrtii (mentioned by Strabo and possible ancestor of Kurds according to Muhammad Dandamayev) (See Carduchi in Encyclopædia Iranica)Leucosyri (White Syrians)MedesParthiansPersiansSagartians (whose name survives in the name of the Zagros Mountains[citation needed])

East Iranian

Alans (some times considered part of the Sarmatians)ArachosiansAriansBactriansDahae ParniMassagetae ApasiacaeKhwarezmiansSaka AmyrgiansIndo-ScythiansKambojas (an Avestan speaking group of East Iranians living in what is now Afghanistan)[5][6][7] Ashvakas: Scholars link the historical Afghans (modern Pashtuns) to the Ashvakas (the Ashvakayanas and Ashvayanas of Pāṇini or the Assakenoi and Aspasio of Arrian). The name Afghan is said to have derived from the Ashvakan of Sanskrit texts.[8][9][10] Ashvakas are identified as a branch of the KambojasParama Kambojas, of the Alay Valley or Alay Mountains, north of Hindukush. In ancient Sanskrit texts, their territory was known as Kumudadvipa and it formed the southern tip of the Sakadvipa or Scythia. In classical literature, this people are known as Komedes. Indian epic Mahabharata designates them as Parama Kambojas[11]OrthocorybantiansSarmatians AntesAorsiBasileans[citation needed]Free Sarmatians[citation needed]IazygesIaxamate[citation needed]Lemigantes[citation needed]Metanastae[12]RoxolaniSaii[13]SerboiSiracesTyrigetae[14]YancaiScythians AgathyrsiBudiniGeloniansScolotiSindi peopleTauriSogdians, possible ancestors of YaghnobisZarangians

That makes no damn sense. if Ancient Assyrians had a concept of nationalism, they would've been Mesopotamian/Sargonid nationalists.

Why would ancient Assyrians be Arab nationalists when the ancient Assyrians (and Mesopotamians as a whole) were more advanced in civilization than Arabs who were still nomadic during the Empire...

Hell, if nationalism existed back then, Baathism would've been Arabs making themselves Assyro-Babylonians...

Because Ancient Assyrians were looking to unite MENA under the prevalent culture, not fragment and divide like you so-called ''''assyrians'''', and nowadays the prevalent one is the Arab one, Baghdad itself was the continuation of Babylon.

There was no Arab language before the III or IV century, it evolved from Aramaic during these centuries, but ppl going as far as Jordan from the peninsula were called Arabs, the Romans divided MENA into Arabia Felix, Arabia Paetra and Arabia Deserta, Arabia Felix has had Sana'a (the first apartment city of the world, and one of the oldest cities), and the settlements in Oman, so it's false to claim there was nothing in south during ancient times... also Petra and Palmyra were builded by Arabs...

I don't even understand why you people consider yourselves the same as ancient Assyrians when you all speak Aramaic, Assyrians spoke Akkadian...

Because Ancient Assyrians were looking to unite MENA under the prevalent culture, not fragment and divide like you so-called ''''assyrians'''', and nowadays the prevalent one is the Arab one, Baghdad itself was the continuation of Babylon.

There was no Arab language before the III or IV century, it evolved from Aramaic during these centuries, but ppl going as far as Jordan from the peninsula were called Arabs, the Romans divided MENA into Arabia Felix, Arabia Paetra and Arabia Deserta, Arabia Felix has had Sana'a (the first apartment city of the world, and one of the oldest cities), and the settlements in Oman, so it's false to claim there was nothing in south during ancient times... also Petra and Palmyra were builded by Arabs...

I don't even understand why you people consider yourselves the same as ancient Assyrians when you all speak Aramaic, Assyrians spoke Akkadian...

Says the 15 year old who is angry at Assyrians because some Australian-Assyrians made fun of him and his mom

Because Ancient Assyrians were looking to unite MENA under the prevalent culture, not fragment and divide like you so-called ''''assyrians'''', and nowadays the prevalent one is the Arab one, Baghdad itself was the continuation of Babylon.

There was no Arab language before the III or IV century, it evolved from Aramaic during these centuries, but ppl going as far as Jordan from the peninsula were called Arabs, the Romans divided MENA into Arabia Felix, Arabia Paetra and Arabia Deserta, Arabia Felix has had Sana'a (the first apartment city of the world, and one of the oldest cities), and the settlements in Oman, so it's false to claim there was nothing in south during ancient times... also Petra and Palmyra were builded by Arabs...

I don't even understand why you people consider yourselves the same as ancient Assyrians when you all speak Aramaic, Assyrians spoke Akkadian...

> Assyrians and Babylonians mixed themselves into extinction.> Baghdad is the continuation of Babylon.

I don't even understand why you people consider yourselves the same as ancient Assyrians when you all speak Aramaic, Assyrians spoke Akkadian...

A large number of ancient English people, the ancestors of modern English people, spoke a Celtic language (instead of Germanic). So how do you explain the majority of modern Brits who speak a Germanic language nowadays (English) as instead of Celtic?

FYI, Akkadian is still a Semitic language, anyway, like Aramaic. So it's part of the same language subfamily (unlike English and Celtic languages). Akkadian simply just became extinct and got superseded by Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East at that time. Languages have always been replaced in history. The difference between Aramaic and Akkadian is like the difference between Pashto and Hindi. It's not that dramatically different. So your argument on the language is a moot point.

If you're so knowledgeable, tell us who the modern Assyrians are? I don't believe you've said anything about who their descendants are.

Because Ancient Assyrians were looking to unite MENA under the prevalent culture, not fragment and divide like you so-called ''''assyrians'''', and nowadays the prevalent one is the Arab one, Baghdad itself was the continuation of Babylon.

It had nothing to do with some strive towards unity. The exploits of ancient Assyrians were for personal, economic, nationalistic and religious motives. The expansion of the Arabs was driven by the same motives. It is not an act of hatred to refuse to be subsumed into a race more prevalent than your own. If 500 million Chinese colonists settled in Syria, Iraq or Lebanon (or anywhere else for that matter), it would not be malicious for the locals to refuse to call themselves Chinese.

There was no Arab language before the III or IV century, it evolved from Aramaic during these centuries, but ppl going as far as Jordan from the peninsula were called Arabs, the Romans divided MENA into Arabia Felix, Arabia Paetra and Arabia Deserta, Arabia Felix has had Sana'a (the first apartment city of the world, and one of the oldest cities), and the settlements in Oman, so it's false to claim there was nothing in south during ancient times... also Petra and Palmyra were builded by Arabs...

This is also rife with errors. Arabic did not evolve from Aramaic, it borrowed heavily from Aramaic. In fact, all Arabs originally spoke South Semitic languages but the kind of Arabic spoken today (as well as Classical Arabic) descends from a rare group of dialects which were not South Semitic but Central Semitic dialects that emerged due to exposure to Central Semitic speakers. These dialects came to be so heavily influenced by Aramaic dialects, especially Assyrian ones, that they came to strongly resemble the other Central Semitic languages. In other words, due to exposure to Central Semitic speakers, Arabs began speaking a language outside of their traditional South Semitic language family, forging a new Central Semitic dialect also called Arabic (which was people typically think of today upon hearing the word Arabic). Arab speakers borrowed so much from beyond their language family that they shifted into the language family of those from whom they borrowed.

Those provinces were part of the Roman divisions of the MENA region but they only constituted a very very small part of that region. There were many other Roman regions such as Mesopotamia and Syria.

What's interesting about both Palmyra and Petra is that they were dominated by Arameans as apposed to Arabs. Over time, these regions became gradually Arabised but it was not until the Islamic conquests that these regions were thoroughly Arabised -nonetheless, the Aramaic influence on the Arabic dialects remained and the Syriac script became the basis for the Nabatean script of the Petrans which in turn became the script of Classical Arabic. In fact, even the Arabic word for Nabatean was used to refer to any Aramaic speaker, including Assyrians -highlighting that Arabs regarded the Nabateans as people other than themselves since it was used as an exonym and never as an endonym by Arabs. Everything in Petra is written in Aramaic. Over time, more and more Arabic appears in the language. However, since an early period in it's history, Arabic names were appearing which suggested it was a mixed population but that the culture was dominated by the Aramaic speaking element of it's populace.

I don't even understand why you people consider yourselves the same as ancient Assyrians when you all speak Aramaic, Assyrians spoke Akkadian...

The ancient Assyrians of the Neo-Assyrian Empire were a monocultural group with one identity and with multi-ethnic origins.

Aramaic and Akkadian were both the official languages of the Neo-Assyrian Empire which the Assyrians forcibly imposed upon others. Sumerian wasn't an official language and reduced in popularity but it was highly respected and regarded as a native language of literature and religion. For a number of different reasons, Aramaic became the most popular language in the empire long before it fell. What Assyrians speak today are Aramaic dialects that descend from the local Akkadianised Aramaic dialects spoken in the heartland of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

For example, in Akkadian, ancient Assyrian dialects of Aramaic and modern Assyrian dialects of Aramaic, we find the only Semitic languages that use the SOV word order which is believed to derive from Sumerian. Although there are many examples I could call upon, this serves a salient example since word order is a lexical feature that is among the least prone to being borrowed. The modern Assyrian dialects are mostly Aramaic but are still heavily influenced by Akkadian.

Take the analogous bilingual nation of Canada for instance; even if they cut themselves off from the world, over time, it is expected that either English will superseded French or vice versa. There are a myriad of factors that can come into play in the favouritism of a language which can make it unpredictable or untoward.

It had nothing to do with some strive towards unity. The exploits of ancient Assyrians were for personal, economic, nationalistic and religious motives. The expansion of the Arabs was driven by the same motives. It is not an act of hatred to refuse to be subsumed into a race more prevalent than your own. If 500 million Chinese colonists settled in Syria, Iraq or Lebanon (or anywhere else for that matter), it would not be malicious for the locals to refuse to call themselves Chinese.

This is also rife with errors. Arabic did not evolve from Aramaic, it borrowed heavily from Aramaic. In fact, all Arabs originally spoke South Semitic languages but the kind of Arabic spoken today (as well as Classical Arabic) descends from a rare group of dialects which were not South Semitic but Central Semitic dialects that emerged due to exposure to Central Semitic speakers. These dialects came to be so heavily influenced by Aramaic dialects, especially Assyrian ones, that they came to strongly resemble the other Central Semitic languages. In other words, due to exposure to Central Semitic speakers, Arabs began speaking a language outside of their traditional South Semitic language family, forging a new Central Semitic dialect also called Arabic (which was people typically think of today upon hearing the word Arabic). Arab speakers borrowed so much from beyond their language family that they shifted into the language family of those from whom they borrowed.

Those provinces were part of the Roman divisions of the MENA region but they only constituted a very very small part of that region. There were many other Roman regions such as Mesopotamia and Syria.

What's interesting about both Palmyra and Petra is that they were dominated by Arameans as apposed to Arabs. Over time, these regions became gradually Arabised but it was not until the Islamic conquests that these regions were thoroughly Arabised -nonetheless, the Aramaic influence on the Arabic dialects remained and the Syriac script became the basis for the Nabatean script of the Petrans which in turn became the script of Classical Arabic. In fact, even the Arabic word for Nabatean was used to refer to any Aramaic speaker, including Assyrians -highlighting that Arabs regarded the Nabateans as people other than themselves since it was used as an exonym and never as an endonym by Arabs. Everything in Petra is written in Aramaic. Over time, more and more Arabic appears in the language. However, since an early period in it's history, Arabic names were appearing which suggested it was a mixed population but that the culture was dominated by the Aramaic speaking element of it's populace.

The ancient Assyrians of the Neo-Assyrian Empire were a monocultural group with one identity and with multi-ethnic origins.

Aramaic and Akkadian were both the official languages of the Neo-Assyrian Empire which the Assyrians forcibly imposed upon others. Sumerian wasn't an official language and reduced in popularity but it was highly respected and regarded as a native language of literature and religion. For a number of different reasons, Aramaic became the most popular language in the empire long before it fell. What Assyrians speak today are Aramaic dialects that descend from the local Akkadianised Aramaic dialects spoken in the heartland of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

For example, in Akkadian, ancient Assyrian dialects of Aramaic and modern Assyrian dialects of Aramaic, we find the only Semitic languages that use the SOV word order which is believed to derive from Sumerian. Although there are many examples I could call upon, this serves a salient example since word order is a lexical feature that is among the least prone to being borrowed. The modern Assyrian dialects are mostly Aramaic but are still heavily influenced by Akkadian.

Take the analogous bilingual nation of Canada for instance; even if they cut themselves off from the world, over time, it is expected that either English will superseded French or vice versa. There are a myriad of factors that can come into play in the favouritism of a language which can make it unpredictable or untoward.

It had nothing to do with some strive towards unity. The exploits of ancient Assyrians were for personal, economic, nationalistic and religious motives. The expansion of the Arabs was driven by the same motives. It is not an act of hatred to refuse to be subsumed into a race more prevalent than your own. If 500 million Chinese colonists settled in Syria, Iraq or Lebanon (or anywhere else for that matter), it would not be malicious for the locals to refuse to call themselves Chinese.

This is also rife with errors. Arabic did not evolve from Aramaic, it borrowed heavily from Aramaic. In fact, all Arabs originally spoke South Semitic languages but the kind of Arabic spoken today (as well as Classical Arabic) descends from a rare group of dialects which were not South Semitic but Central Semitic dialects that emerged due to exposure to Central Semitic speakers. These dialects came to be so heavily influenced by Aramaic dialects, especially Assyrian ones, that they came to strongly resemble the other Central Semitic languages. In other words, due to exposure to Central Semitic speakers, Arabs began speaking a language outside of their traditional South Semitic language family, forging a new Central Semitic dialect also called Arabic (which was people typically think of today upon hearing the word Arabic). Arab speakers borrowed so much from beyond their language family that they shifted into the language family of those from whom they borrowed.

Those provinces were part of the Roman divisions of the MENA region but they only constituted a very very small part of that region. There were many other Roman regions such as Mesopotamia and Syria.

What's interesting about both Palmyra and Petra is that they were dominated by Arameans as apposed to Arabs. Over time, these regions became gradually Arabised but it was not until the Islamic conquests that these regions were thoroughly Arabised -nonetheless, the Aramaic influence on the Arabic dialects remained and the Syriac script became the basis for the Nabatean script of the Petrans which in turn became the script of Classical Arabic. In fact, even the Arabic word for Nabatean was used to refer to any Aramaic speaker, including Assyrians -highlighting that Arabs regarded the Nabateans as people other than themselves since it was used as an exonym and never as an endonym by Arabs. Everything in Petra is written in Aramaic. Over time, more and more Arabic appears in the language. However, since an early period in it's history, Arabic names were appearing which suggested it was a mixed population but that the culture was dominated by the Aramaic speaking element of it's populace.

The ancient Assyrians of the Neo-Assyrian Empire were a monocultural group with one identity and with multi-ethnic origins.

Aramaic and Akkadian were both the official languages of the Neo-Assyrian Empire which the Assyrians forcibly imposed upon others. Sumerian wasn't an official language and reduced in popularity but it was highly respected and regarded as a native language of literature and religion. For a number of different reasons, Aramaic became the most popular language in the empire long before it fell. What Assyrians speak today are Aramaic dialects that descend from the local Akkadianised Aramaic dialects spoken in the heartland of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

For example, in Akkadian, ancient Assyrian dialects of Aramaic and modern Assyrian dialects of Aramaic, we find the only Semitic languages that use the SOV word order which is believed to derive from Sumerian. Although there are many examples I could call upon, this serves a salient example since word order is a lexical feature that is among the least prone to being borrowed. The modern Assyrian dialects are mostly Aramaic but are still heavily influenced by Akkadian.

Take the analogous bilingual nation of Canada for instance; even if they cut themselves off from the world, over time, it is expected that either English will superseded French or vice versa. There are a myriad of factors that can come into play in the favouritism of a language which can make it unpredictable or untoward.

This clown picks and chooses what fits his agenda lmao. Akkadian was on the decline during the Neo-Assyrian empire and that's when Aramaic was taking over.

First of all, Persians are Shia and Turks are Sunni. Shia and Sunni had NEVER good relation.

I'm a REAL pure Kurd and I'm NOT a Muslim, never was and never will be.

Real Kurds, like Rojava, PKK, Ezdi from Ezdixan are not Muslim. We are all Kurdish Aryans first. Religion is not important.

REAL Kurds are not part of the Islamic Nation. We are part of the 'ARYAN' nation. We are Aryans first and religion comes after our ethnical and racial identity.

Those traitors from Kuridstan who believe that fag*ot Allah is more important than Kurdish Aryan race have no future in Kurdistan. those traitors will be defeated, they are weak and don't form a big problem for the Aryans.

Kurds (the Medes) and Persians are brothers by roots, race, culture, language, history and FUTURE! Turks and Arabs were always enemies of the Persians, like they were Always enemies of the Kurds. So, all Aryans (Kurds + Perisans) share the same enemies. That whu Kruds and Persians share the same destiny.

Jews and Israel have the same agenda and the same interests as our enemies Turanic-Mongoloid Turks and DAESH. That's why Jews and Israel, same as DAESH, need to be defeated.

Stop with your hyperboles and exaggerations. You think the Arabs are so keen on their states created with the Sykes-Picot borders? The majority of Arabs fought with the Turks against the Arab Revolt instigated by the British Lawrence of Arabia, and later tried for decades (and are still trying) to get rid of those borders and unite under all lots of banners even though they failed.

The reason we Ba'athists are against Kurdish Nationalism, ''assyrian'' Nationalism or any other kind of ethno-nationalism within our countries is because creating more micro states following the Sykes-Picot logic will only make things even worse for everyone in the region (including the Kurds), not because we're some kind of hypocrites or racists towards the Kurds (who should stop day-dreaming for a second and ask themselves: if having your own state = being happy, then why our Arab neighbors are so miserable inside their own countries? Any self-made propagande about why you're special even though you have so much in common with your neighbors and why you won't have the same fate as them doesn't count.) and will further complicate the situation by adding more variables into the equation of the Middle-East (more states that will squabble against each other resulting in more animosity being created between the people of the region and more cords for the foreign actors (Jews and Westerners) to manipulate us all with), making a strong and united Middle East even more harder to realize.

And you'd be really hard-pressed to find any Arab who approves of the harsh treatment in the Kurds's regards by Arab dictators. It should be known that they don't represent us and that they're forced upon our throat by the same actors that forced our borders on us (we're still trying to get rid of them too btw) and that they will even massacre their own kind if they rebelled against them. Using the incidents of the past that the Arab people as whole but some individuals were responsible for as a fear-mongering excuse for separation is just a short-sided propaganda that is blinding Kurdish Nationalism from the fate that awaits it if it ever realizes its goals: becoming yet another version of the Arab states it tries so hard to get away from.

And oh, Saladin himself emphasized more on him being Muslim than him being Kurd, and made the Muslims more united not more fractured with his own state for his own people !!

Back in Darwin for the 2nd time in my life. Originally from Sydney (Fairfield area), lived in Vanuatu, Japan (twice), Thailand and Darwin once previously. Western Sydney Wanderers fan as well as Parramatta Eels. Veteran of 3 World Cups (*1994, 2006 and 2010).

Back in Darwin for the 2nd time in my life. Originally from Sydney (Fairfield area), lived in Vanuatu, Japan (twice), Thailand and Darwin once previously. Western Sydney Wanderers fan as well as Parramatta Eels. Veteran of 3 World Cups (*1994, 2006 and 2010).

Stop with your hyperboles and exaggerations. You think the Arabs are so keen on their states created with the Sykes-Picot borders? The majority of Arabs fought with the Turks against the Arab Revolt instigated by the British Lawrence of Arabia, and later tried for decades (and are still trying) to get rid of those borders and unite under all lots of banners even though they failed.

The reason we Ba'athists are against Kurdish Nationalism, ''assyrian'' Nationalism or any other kind of ethno-nationalism within our countries is because creating more micro states following the Sykes-Picot logic will only make things even worse for everyone in the region (including the Kurds), not because we're some kind of hypocrites or racists towards the Kurds (who should stop day-dreaming for a second and ask themselves: if having your own state = being happy, then why our Arab neighbors are so miserable inside their own countries? Any self-made propagande about why you're special even though you have so much in common with your neighbors and why you won't have the same fate as them doesn't count.) and will further complicate the situation by adding more variables into the equation of the Middle-East (more states that will squabble against each other resulting in more animosity being created between the people of the region and more cords for the foreign actors (Jews and Westerners) to manipulate us all with), making a strong and united Middle East even more harder to realize.

And you'd be really hard-pressed to find any Arab who approves of the harsh treatment in the Kurds's regards by Arab dictators. It should be known that they don't represent us and that they're forced upon our throat by the same actors that forced our borders on us (we're still trying to get rid of them too btw) and that they will even massacre their own kind if they rebelled against them. Using the incidents of the past that the Arab people as whole but some individuals were responsible for as a fear-mongering excuse for separation is just a short-sided propaganda that is blinding Kurdish Nationalism from the fate that awaits it if it ever realizes its goals: becoming yet another version of the Arab states it tries so hard to get away from.

And oh, Saladin himself emphasized more on him being Muslim than him being Kurd, and made the Muslims more united not more fractured with his own state for his own people !!